WarSclerotic

Iranian dissident Masoud Ali Mohammadi ‘killed by Arab hitman’ – Times Online.

An Iranian university professor killed last week by a blast from a remote-controlled bomb strapped to a parked motorcycle may have been the victim of an Arab hitman, according to opposition groups.

The murder of Masoud Ali Mohammadi, 50, a supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader, has been blamed by the Tehran regime on “mercenaries” financed by Israel and Washington because of his role as a nuclear physicist.

However, opposition groups who monitor Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese movement, in Tehran, claim that a member of the group, known by his pseudonym “Abu Nasser”, was photographed at the scene of the explosion in Tehran’s affluent Gheytarih suburb.

A German-based opposition group released a photograph of a man of similar appearance who, it alleges, was one of the pro-regime demonstrators who stormed Mousavi’s office in Tehran after disputed presidential elections last June.

//

The opposition claims the Revolutionary Guard uses Hezbollah operatives for some bloodthirsty tasks because they have a reputation for ruthlessness, and are outsiders and can always be blamed as opposition sympathisers.

Tehran has gone to great lengths to suggest that Mohammadi was killed because he was a nuclear scientist, implying that he was part of Iran’s programme to develop nuclear weapons.

However, Majid Mohammadi, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Global Studies at Stony Brook University, New York, and also a friend, said: “He was not a nuclear physicist. He was just a physicist. I believe the Iranian [official] media highlight this word ‘nuclear’ to imply he was killed by the Israelis or Americans.”

Iran maintains close links with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which it supplies with weapons and funds. Scores of Hezbollah officials are based in Tehran and, according to the opposition, are frequently used by the regime to crack down on its opponents.

It alleges that Abu Nasser had been spotted alongside revolutionary guards in recent anti-government demonstrations. Sources in Tehran suggest the murdered scientist was a strong supporter of the opposition and his assassination was a warning by the regime to its opponents.

Last week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the “method of bombing” indicated “Zionists did it and that they hate us and don’t want to progress”.

In Israel there was no official comment. In recent years Mossad, the Israeli overseas intelligence service, has launched extensive undercover operations inside Iran to attempt to derail its nuclear ambitions.

Mysterious fates have befallen a number of Iranians involved in the nuclear programme. Two years ago a nuclear scientist was found dead at his home, apparently from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Mishka Ben-David, a former Mossad agent, doubts that Israel was involved in last week’s assassination: “Could you imagine how much risk it takes to carry out an attack of that kind in Tehran?” He does not believe the Iranian professor was worth the effort.

EDITORIAL: War with Iran nears – Washington Times.

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, an important Iranian nuclear scientist, was killed yesterday by a bomb planted outside his home. Iran has accused Israel and the United States of assassinating Mr. Ali-Mohammadi in an attempt to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear program. If true, such short-of-war methods could be seen as a means of preventing a larger conflict or paving the way for more deadly operations.

The Obama administration’s diplomatic outreach effort is dead, too. The mullahs met President Obama’s outstretched hand with an extended middle finger. Iran announced in November that it planned to construct 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a development former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix called “puzzling” because “even big countries don’t have ten enrichment plants.” Last month, top-secret technical notes from Iran’s nuclear program were leaked that detailed research on a neutron initiator, the triggering mechanism for an atomic bomb.

It is increasingly difficult to claim that Iran’s nuclear effort is intended for peaceful civilian purposes. The Dec. 31 deadline for Iran to reply to a proposed nuclear deal passed with no response. The debate in Washington has shifted toward how best to target sanctions and whether they should – or can – be crafted in a way to support the reform movement in the country.

But time is running out. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave the Obama White House a year to make progress with Iran, and instead, the situation has grown worse. Israel repeatedly has stated that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and the Jewish state is receiving significant behind-the-scenes encouragement from Sunni Arab states wary of the possibility of Iranian regional hegemony.

Preparation for possible conflict is ongoing. This week, a biological-warfare-preparedness exercise is being held in Tel Aviv and other cities. Starting late next month, gas masks will begin to be distributed to every Israeli citizen; similar measures were undertaken before the first and second Gulf wars.

On Sunday, Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said in a clear signal to Tehran that it would be “irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies” with respect to Iran. The next day, it was reported that America was doubling the value of emergency military equipment stockpiled in Israel, which would be available for Israeli use in the event of an emergency. Perhaps this is a signal to Iran as well.

The coming conflict will not be an overnight air strike followed by bellicose language, like the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear site in September 2007. Disrupting Iran’s nuclear program will require Israel to undertake a sustained campaign. Iran will launch reprisal attacks through its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon, encourage Syria to respond, foment chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially order terror attacks on Western targets.

U.S. policymakers are mealy-mouthed about the possibility of conflict with Iran. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the conventional view when he said that Iran developing a nuclear weapon is “potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome” but taking military action to prevent it “also has a very, very destabilizing outcome.” Washington prefers the third way, a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, in the hope of somehow preserving stability. But soon, the choice will be made by others, and the real question is what role the United States will play when war comes.